was directed to be considered for an appointment. Acquisition proceedings have been completed in the year 1985. The first respondent's father was a cultivating tenant and compensation was paid. A request was made initially seeking appointment for the displaced persons relying upon G.O.Ms.No.656, Labour and Employment Department, dated 29.06.1978. An order was passed under G.O.(1D).No.29, Higher Education (OP1) Department, dated 20.02.2001, in pursuance to the orders passed by the State Administrative Tribunal, dated 18.06.1998 in O.A.No.4537/1998. This order was passed pursuant to the representation made by the respondent 17.11.1997. The afore-said order rejecting the request was challenged in the year 2007. The State Administrative Tribunal rejected the request of the writ petitioner by holding that the appointment is not feasible for consideration, since the appellant would not have come within the purview of the Government Orders passed namely G.O.Ms.No.656, Labour and Employment Department, dated 29.06.1978 and G.O.Ms.No.324, Revenue Department, dated 18.03.1986 for Central Government Undertaking. Further it was held there was no corresponding duty on the State Government to give employment. The learned Single Judge was pleased to set aside the aforesaid order by directing the appellant to consider the case for employment to the first respondent/writ petitioner's son thought not a party to the proceedings. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.
